SEPARATE BILLS—LEAVE TO INTRODUCE THE ENGLISH BILL UNANIMOUS— THE SAME EXTENDED TO THE BILL FOR SCOTLAND WHICH COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TILL FOLLOWING SESSION—ENGLISH BILL PASSES WITHOUT A DIVISION—ROYAL ASSENT, JUNE 3RD, 1778—PRAYER FOR THE KING IN ALL THE CHURCHES—BISHOP HAY WITH BISHOP CHALLONER—CATHOLICS OF SCOT­LAND CHEERED BY PROSPECT OF RELIEF—NEWS CONVEYED TO PROPAGANDA BY THE BISHOPS AT THEIR ANNUAL MEETING—BISHOP HAY’S OPINION OF OATH OF ALLEGIANCE—PASTORAL LETTER—BIGOTRY OF SOME PRESBYTE­RIAN SYNODS—OTHERS, LIKE PRINCIPAL ROBERTSON, MORE LIBERAL—DR. ABERNETHY DRUMMOND, BISHOP HAY’S “DETECTION”—VIOLENT WRITING AGAINST RELIEF BILL.

Notwithstanding the cordial regard and co-operation Lord Linton and Sir John Dalrymple had met with in England, there arose some difference between the Scotch and English representa­tives, which led to there being separate bills for the two countries. That the objectionable laws were enacted by different Parliaments, an English and a Scotch Parliament, was made the pretext. It was a frivolous one, however; and, it is supposed, was merely used by the English committee as an excuse for getting rid of the Scotch Bill. Lord Linton immediately saw the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Henry Dundas, who willingly undertook to introduce a Bill of Relief for his Catholic fellow-countrymen. He observed, however, that it would be better to watch the progress of the English Relief Bill, before taking any steps, and see how it suceeded. If there should not be time in the Parliament that was then sitting, he pledged his word to obtain for the Scotch Catholics, in the next session, all that their English brethren should obtain in the existing one.

It was managed so as to have the English Bill presented to the House of Commons by two leading members of the Opposition, Sir George Saville and Mr. Dunning. Their addresses on the occasion must have been highly gratifying to the Catholics, as well as that of Attorney-General Thurlow, who also spoke in support of the measure. Leave was given to introduce the Bill without a dissentient voice. The Lord Advocate then, observing how the House was disposed, rose and asked leave to bring in a similar Bill for Scotland. This was granted with the same unanimity. It was found, however, to be too late in the session to introduce the Bill; but the Lord Advocate renewed his pledge to Lord Linton that the provisions of the English Bill should be extended to Scotland during the next sitting of Parliament.

The English Relief Bill, meanwhile, passed through both Houses without a division. It was read a first time on May 15th, and received the Royal Assent June 3rd, 1778. Its terms were, in substance, the same as already pointed out. The only condition for enjoying the benefit of it was declared to be the taking and subscribing in a Register the new Oath of Allegiance appended to the Bill. The English Catholics readily came forward to swear and subscribe as required. The day after the Bill passed, a form of prayer was promulgated in all the Catholic Churches and chapels in England for “our most Gracious Sovereign King George III., his Royal Consort and all the Royal Family.”

It was a source of happiness for Bishop Hay, during his sojourn in London, to be often with his venerable friend, Bishop Challoner, now in his eighty-seventh year, but who, notwithstanding his great age, enjoyed excellent health. The Scotch Bishop, as usual, a man of the world, although not wordly-minded, went a good deal into society, paying and receiving many visits, sometimes on business, and sometimes for acquaintance sake.

Returning to Edinburgh with Lord Linton, he gave the Scotch Catholics great comfort by informing them that there was, at length, a pretty sure prospect of obtaining relief from the worst and most trying of the penal laws. He advised them, meanwhile, to conduct themselves with becoming moderation on the auspicious occasion, which, indeed, they were in the habit of doing, and together with him, express their gratitude to the Almighty for the happy turn events had taken. In one of his letters to Bishop Grant, he shows his appreciation of the recent good fortune, and at the same time, his astonishment, calling the Relief Bill “an amazing affair.”

The time for the annual meeting of the Scotch Bishops had come, and Bishop Hay repaired to Scalan, where he spent the greater part of July. He was greatly renewed after his labours and busy life in London, by the unbroken repose and invigorating breezes of that lonely glen. He regretted to find that the health of his brother Bishops had greatly failed. He said with grief, that he could not hope to enjoy much longer his intercourse with the senior Bishop, and Bishop Macdonald of the Highland district, although not aged, was in very delicate health. The chief business of the Bishop at this meeting was the pleasing duty of informing the Cardinals of Prop­aganda of the success of the English Relief Bill, and the expectation they had in Scotland of being similarly benefited in a few months. The constitution of the administrators of the mission temporalities had been revised, and the Bishops, in conjunction with them, addressed a letter to the clergy, advising them of the change. Bishop Hay availed himself of his leisure at Scalan to overtake his foreign correspondence. In one of his letters he says regarding the new oath prescribed to the English Catholics: “There is nothing in it against conscience, although it is conceived in very indelicate and harsh terms.” Bishop Grant and his coadjutor, before the close of the meeting, addressed a pastoral letter to the clergy of the Lowland district, congratulating them on the relief that was so soon expected for Scotland in regard to the Penal laws. They recommended also that the clergy should inculcate among their people respect and obedience to the laws; gratitude and attachment to His Majesty’s person and Government, as well as moderation and propriety in their relations with persons of other denominations. Although banns before marriage had been, for some time, without hindrance, proclaimed at Edinburgh, the custom had not yet been established throughout the country. The Bishops in their pastoral letter enjoined the publication of banns in all the missions, the state of affairs being no longer unfavourable to such practice.

The idea of a Bill for the mitigation of the Penal Laws in Scotland excited in an extraordinary degree the anger of the Presbyterian party. No fewer than nine Presbyterian synods throughout the country passed resolutions to the effect that the proposed measure must be opposed to the utmost. Not even the powerful influence of the liberal Principal Robertson could prevent the Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale, which sits at Edinburgh, from passing a resolution in accord­ance with the general clamour. He could only obtain that it should be more moderately worded. It alludes to the fears entertained by many that the English Relief Bill would inflict serious injury on the Protestant interests of Great Britain; it was at the same time, the conviction of many others that the ultimate effect of that Bill would be no more than the removal of a few severe penalties and disabilities from inoffensive Catholics. “Amid these various sentiments,” the Synod adds, “while they declare their firm adherence to the principles of liberty and the right of private judgment, that they have no intention to interfere with the Legislature in matters of civil right, and do, by no means, wish that any person should be deprived of his inheritance, or subjected to civil penalties for conscience sake. They, at the same time, express their hopes that if such repeal shall be extended to this part of the United Kingdom, the wisdom and attention of the Legislature will make effectual provision, under proper sanctions, to prevent all the dangers that are apprehended from that repeal.”

The Synod of Aberdeen was even more liberal. The influence of Principal Campbel was exerted there; and that synodal body enjoyed the enviable distinction of being one of five synods which pronounced no opinion whatever in the controversy.
Personal ill-will came to aggravate matters. The non-juring minister, Dr. Abernethy Drum­mond, could not forget what they called the desertion of the Jacobite cause by Bishop Hay and the Catholics generally. He remembered, also, the severe castigation inflicted on him by the Bishop on occasion of the controversy on Miracles.

Bishop Hay’s pamphlet, “Detection,” in reply to Principal Campbel, was the alleged cause of complaint and provocation. The learned Prelate had accused the Principal of “diabolical calumny and damnable detraction,” in having asserted that “from the rescripts of Popes, the opinions of approved divines and even the practice of converts, it were easy to prove that it is not contrary to the will of Heaven to lie, betray or even murder when the supposed interest of the Church requires it.” Bishop Hay had challenged his opponent to produce any one approved divine of the Catholic communion that holds, approves, or even insinuates such a doctrine. It was now seven years since his challenge was published; but, it was not till August of this year that Dr. A. Drummond took up the challenge on behalf of Dr. Campbel’s charge. He wrote to Bishop Hay inviting him to an interview in the advocates’ library in presence of three or four learned men to be chosen by both sides, for the purpose of “enquiring, by looking at a few printed books,” whether the assertion of Dr. Campbel could be proved or not. The Bishop being at the time engaged in removing to his new house, requested delay which was readily agreed to. Soon after, however, the non juror, losing patience, twice over renewed his application for a discussion. As a contest of the kind would have required considerable preparation for which the Bishop had not time, he requested Dr. Drummond to furnish him with the names of the authors whom he intended to quote, and with references to the places in their works by which he designed to prove his assertions. This request was followed by a long letter from Dr. Drum­mond, in which was a short abstract of his proofs. From this it appeared to Bishop Hay that such a controversy was not advisable. Before he could come to any conclusion, there was a second letter from Drummond, in which he added new proofs to those already advanced, and: sketching his proposed line of argument (as he called it), he stated that the Bishop would shortly see the whole printed in the form of a letter addressed to Bishop Hay, and published by the Presbyterian Society for the Propagation of Christian knowledge. This showed a change of tactics on the part of the non-juror. He now desired, not a private discussion, but a public debate. The Bishop, therefore, declined to meet him and awaited the appearance of the printed letter. This alliance of Prelacy with Presbyterianism was something new and unexpected. Anything, however, to inflict a wound on the Catholic religion. This was not difficult, considering the clamour that prevailed, and of which the non-juring minister scrupled not to avail himself, both from political rancour and private spite.

Drummond’s pamphlet soon appeared. Its title was: “The lawfulness of breaking faith with heretics proved to be an established doctrine of the Church of Rome; in a letter to Mr. G. H., by W. A. D. This was a brand thrown into the already burning mass. A non-juror must have reason, argued the Presbyterians, when he attacks a Catholic. The author, moreover, perverting the private correspondence that had taken place, laboured to make it appear that the Bishop had declined the proposed discussion from a consciousness of the weakness of his cause.

So violent an attack must be repelled; and the able Bishop did repel it, and with his usual vigour. His reply bore the following title:—An answer to W. A. D.’s letter to G. H.; in which the conduct of the Government, in mitigating the penal laws, against Papists, is justified; the sedi­tious tendency of W. A. D.’s letter is discovered; the Roman Catholics fully vindicated from the slanderous accusation of thinking it lawful to break faith with heretics, which W. A. D. endeav­ours to fix upon them; and W. A. D.’s letter proved to be a gross imposition on the public, composed of misrepresentations and false reasonings from beginning to end.” The answer ably defends the Relief Bill; discusses the authorities cited in the non juror’s pamphlet, and shows their true meaning; and, finally proves, in the most satisfactory manner, that “the Catholic Church holds it impious and unlawful to break faith with any person whatsoever, or on any account.” The answer concludes by deprecating the bitter spirit which appeared to animate Dr. Drummond against the Catholics.

The non juring minister produced another pamphlet. It mattered not to him that his statements were overthrown. Although his reasoning was so weak that no man of learning or any informa­tion, could, for a moment, entertain it, he persisted in his malicious course. He wrote for the populace, and, unfortunately, he had its ear. In his second letter, Dr. W. A. D. pretends to refute the objections to his first epistle, so clearly set forth by Bishop Hay. In attempting to do so, however, he only drew down on himself a castigation under which even the Reverend Dr. Aber­nethy Drummond must have felt somewhat sore. “So particularly disgraceful,” writes the Bishop, as well as malignant, is the part you have acted, that all men of honour and humanity must equally deny you both these qualities, especially when they are told that you grew to a man’s estate, a member of that very church upon which you have now endeavoured to call down vengeance. But, sir, you come too late for that wicked purpose. This is not the age; at least, thanks to God, this is not the country of persecution for conscience sake.”

Whatever the wise and learned may have thought of Abernethy Drummond’s performances, it was no slight satisfaction to him to find that they produced the bitter fruit which he so much desired. His pamphlets were widely distributed among the Presbyterians; and, the more ignorant ministers, taking his denunciations for texts, raved in their pulpits about the evils of “Popery” and the dangers of the Relief Bill. Taking example from Drummond, they issued numberless pamphlets, whilst the newspapers teemed with bitter and inflammatory articles. It would be to withhold due honour to Principal Campbel, not to mention, and with praise, that he was almost the only one among the Presbyterians, who protested against the popular clamour. In an address to the people of Scotland on the subject, he disclaimed all attempts to repress the growth of “Popery” by compulsion, and insisted that the only consistent course for a Protestant nation, was the milder method of persuasion.